Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
GeekNights 090820 - Health Care
Tonight on GeekNights we have a brief discussion about health care. In the news, Jet Blue sold out of all you can jet passes and the US life expectancy has peaked.
Rym's Thing - Buzz Aldrining
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 100m
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 200m
Rym's Thing - Buzz Aldrining
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 100m
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 200m
Comments
The government uses the best way currently possible (and I don't know how accurate it will be, just go with me on this) to determine the age at which every citizen will die. They use this information, factor in everything else about you (employment, education, etc.) and come up with a monetary value. This value would mainly be what you will end up paying in taxes to the government by the time you are your predicted dying age. Now, of course there are limits, but you would be free to spend up to that value (or a percentage of that value, like %80 or something) on your health care needs.
This system is full of problems, but I think it's a step in the right direction. It sounds cruel to the old people, but always remember there is a private option if you want to spend some of your own cash, and I suspect that it wouldn't be anywhere near the current costs because private health care demand will lower by a large number if there is a public option in place.
Let me now state my reasons
1. It will be cheaper for insureance holders; For a start, listen to anyone vaugely involved with logistivs and they will tell you that the CPH (cost per head) is almost universially lower when ypu have more people. Also you wont have the insureance companies taking a cut of said medicare tax for profit.
2. Banks will have to deal with less banrupcies; It is commonly known (sorry I be typing this on my phone so I can't hotlink a relivant artical, will do when I get to a PC) that the most common form of personal bankrupcy is medical bankrupcy. With universial medicare this would be reduced to nil.
3. America would be more ecnomically able; Now this is the one that will cause the most dispute, however think howmany more doctors and nurses would have to be employed to service such an industry, not to mention the expansions to hospitals and GP's offices.
4. Also people, in general will be healthyer. Because of regular health checks for all the population there will be a greater chance of spotting health problems earlyer.
I now leave the post to have all the flaws in it pointed out........
At least Thomas Vanek disproves at least to some degree your theories of where great hockey players are born :P
Luca Sbisa, a prospect for the Anaheim Ducks also has great potential and he was born on an island in the Mediterranean Sea.
"Until America cares about its health I don't want to pay for it."
I personally like something more akin to the Hans Slomp projection with two axes, which places communism and fascism at the bottom (albeit on opposite ends of the traditional left/right axis) and shows how close they are. Another method was suggested by one of my professors at college: he just took the traditional left-right axis and bent it like a horseshoe. In this way, communism and fascism actually end up closer together, which is more like reality than the "polar opposite" viewpoint.
I think a big part of the problem is that all of the discussion takes the current system of health insurance for granted: even the public-option and single-payer plans still work from that assumption rather than examining the current system in-depth and finding out why it works for some people and doesn't work for others.
Since a lot of the problem with the system is cost, I think that's a great place to start. As y'all mentioned, certain costs are inevitable: research and development is always going to be expensive (whether it's privately or publicly funded) and those resources have to be recouped before more r&d can be done. Good doctors are also expensive; people often forget that education is always a net loss financially while someone's in school. Doctors (and anyone getting an education) forgo money they could earn now for the chance to earn even more money later.
Where I think the most costs could be cut is in the insurance model itself. One other reason health care is expensive is that many people are not fully aware of the costs,and there is a preponderance of middle-men that inevitably drive up prices.
On paper, communism is all about the people. The rise up of the people working for the people. Everyone gets everything the same, and everyone is working for everyone. It's not top down or bottom up. It's bottom bottom. Everything is flat.
Fascism is all about the state. Everything is top down. You do what the state says. The state gets everything. The state runs everything.
It doesn't get much more opposite than that.
I don't know about your family, but mine has always been pretty similar to a Russian Mir. Money goes into a pot, and everyone contributes according to their ability, and takes out according to their need. Questions affecting one member affect the whole, so the whole makes decisions for the individual. Of course, the individual contributes to the decision, but if the individual were to obstinately presever in a course of action that would damage the whole, there's be trouble. This never happens, because the individual normally sees his way clear to falling in line with the whole.
In practice, this usually means me giving up space for my action figures so that my wife has more room for her horse trophies, or me not watching From Dusk til Dawn so that my wife can watch Project: Runway. You get the picture.
To use your example of the family. Think about the parents who threaten to not pay for college unless the kids do, X, Y, and Z.
Here's a government example. Let's say you live in a perfect communist state, as described. You want to protest something. You go to the government-owned printing press and ask them to print 5000 anti-government flyers. If they say no, you've got no alternative. It's not like you can make your own either. Who's going to sell you a printing press, paper, or ink?
Without economic liberty, you can't maintain personal liberty. The shared pot is nice, but it will cost you your freedom.
In fact when you look at the ideal, communism is free of the tragedy of the commons because there is no self interest present. Whereas the ideology of fascism is almost directly based upon the tragedy of the commons, or rather in response to it.
In the real world of course the tragedy of the commons is independent of political systems and can (and does) occur everywhere there are limited resources and insufficient regulation. Think about what e.g. laissez faire capitalism would do the natural environment.
If your rhombus works so that the reality of the situation is represented, then that's great. If it doesn't, then scrap the model. The left-right axis works as far as it goes, but then it fails for exactly the reason that you state later when you said, "The problem with this kind of situation is that autocracy emerges."
In practice (which is what my post was about) communism and fascism end up in similar places. We can talk about the "intentions" all day long, but the practical reality is that despite some philosophical differences, they have more in common with each other than either has with the center.
By the way, if we take your definition of fascism, i.e. it's all about the state (which works), that sounds like government-run health care to me. Maybe those making the fascist connection are more right than many are willing to admit. I still think carrying around a sign with a swastika on it is generally not a good idea, regardless of the point.
Second, this isn't just about whether or not the elderly and feeble (or the poor, for that matter) are affected. I'm personally all for helping those who can't do it on their own. I just want to make sure that we don't steamroll over everyone else in the process.
Third, "top-heavy control" tends to be "top-heavy control," regardless of the intentions. It doesn't matter if I'm talking politics, economics, religion, or whatever. In practice, all government is force and control and increasing it always limits freedom. We may agree that some of those limits are necessary and even good, but the more the government does, the less free we are.
Regardless of all other factors in health insurance, I think that opting out needs to be an available decision. Obviously people would be opted-in by default, and have to fill out lots of papers to completely opt-out. However, someone should be able to pay nothing and get nothing if they so choose.
There is one problem with this, though. People who opt-in pay into the system their whole lives. They typically reap the benefits when they are old. It just wouldn't seem right to for someone who opted out to stay opted out, if they wanted to opt back in. However, such a person would probably opt back in only when they needed the payout, but they have contributed unequally since they have not been paying for their entire lives like other people have.
One solution to this problem, I think, is to not allow someone who has opted out to opt back into the public option, and only opt back into private options. Another solution is that someone who chooses to opt back in will not be covered for pre-existing conditions. Or maybe just have some sort of waiting period. Once you opt out, you have to pay into the system for X period of time before receiving X level of treatment.
In Australia basically everybody has access to medical service, however if you don't want to pay all up front and don't have private medical insurance you have to visit a "Bulk Biller" practice basically a practice that accepts the "public option".
Some practices won't take any Medicare clients.
As someone young yes you don't need it, I've only needed to use it once in the last 10 years, also once since I started being taxed, it was for a 5 minute consult so I could get a doc to give me a prescription of antibiotics I wanted / needed.
I don't pay for this I just submit to the government online (or by prepaid post if you want to use snail mail) that I visited this doctor for reason X - thus the Doctor gets paid by the Government.
I have to pay for this by a Medicare Levy Fee when paying for taxes. I can avoid or minimise my levy by having a private medical insurance, which I do and the one I use is very bare because I don't need it. However my brother gets one with lots of extras for younger patients for alternative therapies massage, physio, eye glasses etc.
It's even cheaper in the UK and they even take non citizens in with little paperwork. (In Australia you tend to carry around your Medicare card like you would a driver's license).
I'm not sure where my either of these Commonwealth governments become evil for this public service. Obama is actually helping the country from the base but is being Buzz Aldrined by stupid people.
I have the choice of either having Private or Public, but I cannot have neither and I think that's where everyone thinks the US Government is being an evil mastermind. It's similar to education, you can choose public or private.
1) People are required to have health insurance.
2) Employers must provide health insurance or pay an 8% tax.
3) Many employers already pay more than that for their current insurance. Thus, there could be a financial incentive for employers to drop private insurance and just pay the tax, and the employees end up on the public plan.
Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But the incentives are there, in HR 3200. From a practical standpoint, the Senate is now more important. We'll have to see now that Senator Kennedy is gone how things go there.
I do agree that competition is a necessary component of any health care reform. However, competition with the government is rarely competition. The government doesn't have to make a profit, while a private company does; the government plan won't go out of business, while a private company can.